is further complicated by significant differences within the archaeological record itself. Roman and Celtic antiquities are concentrated in the south and west of Germany and in Switzerland and Austria, but in the eastern and northern parts of Germany, Germanic (and partly Slavic) antiquities dominate. In the past this was a permanent source of conflict for the discipline. Nevertheless, it is possible to uncover some common themes in its development.

The name traditionally used by institutions that deal with research on human prehistory in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland is Vor- und Frühgeschichte (or Ur- und Frühgeschichte). This is most aptly translated as “pre- and proto-history” and refers to those periods from which written sources are unknown or, at best, rare. The German term Archäologie (archaeology) has long been virtually reserved for the archaeology of classical antiquity (Klassische archaeology). Only in the last few years has it become customary among prehistorians to use the term Archäologie or, more accurately, Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie (pre- and proto-historic archaeology).

Toward a History of Prehistoric Archaeology in Germany

The history of prehistoric archaeology has been a topic of interest within the discipline of archaeology in Germany for a long time. In 1938 Hans Gummel published a thick volume on the history of German prehistoric archaeology from the seventeenth century until the 1930s. In retrospect the early date chosen for the beginning of this synthesis seems somewhat surprising. The first ordinary chair for prehistoric archaeology at a German university was established only in 1927, at the University of Marburg. Before that time prehistory at German universities was taught by extraordinary professors or by lecturers and scholars from other disciplines. The first extraordinary chairs were established at the turn of the twentieth century at the Universities of Vienna (assumed by Moritz Hoernes in 1900) and Berlin (occupied by gustaf kossinna in 1902), and as early as 1874 rudolf virchow had expressed doubts as to whether prehistory would ever become an independent discipline. Under these circumstances, why was such an early date given for the history of archaeology in Gummel’s work? From the historical context it is clear that Gummel’s synthesis must be seen in relation to contemporary attempts to transform prehistoric archaeology into what could be regarded as a mature discipline. Due to political circumstances the success of this initiative remained limited.

Gummel’s efforts to promote the necessity of a continued reflection on the history of prehistory were not very successful. Despite his own early monograph and other early contributions to this topic, especially by Ernst Wahle (1951), research on the history of prehistoric archaeology even today remains underdeveloped in central Europe, and critical assessments of the history of prehistoric archaeology have only become available since the mid-1990s (Härke 2000). Many of the more recent attempts focus on the role of prehistoric archaeology during the Third Reich (Leube 2000), a topic that was dealt with earlier by historians (Bollmus 1970; Kater 1974). Older periods of the history of prehistoric archaeology are still only seldom written about, and apart from publications that deal with single aspects of the subject in Germany, only one recent overview is available today (Kossack 1999; also see Kossack 1992 and Kühn 1976). In that overview author Georg Kossack drew on his own long experience within German prehistoric archaeology and not only gave valuable information on important scholars, excavations, methods, and ideas but also described the political background of twentieth-century prehistoric archaeology.

A Short Outline of the Development of Prehistoric Archaeology in Germany

The history of prehistoric archaeology in central Europe is closely linked with the political history of the relevant countries. This is especially true in Germany. The main crises and resolutions in German history during the nineteenth